https://www.wired.co.

uk/article/china-coronav
irus

I feel that this argument is very good and informative but it lacks the impact
by the second article. It is good due to the balance in usage of words, there is
no biased comments, the tone is moderate all the time There is also a whole
global explanation about it with very detailed facts about the cases in
different countries. It does explain how it started specifically saying who,
what ,where, when and why and it contains national and global perspectives.
It contains references to other sites showing that they used a variety of
sources but the problem is that it is written by Matt Reynolds, not a
professor or health expert and it is too congested. You cant get your head
around all the facts.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/timeline-coro
navirus-started/story?id=69435165

I think that this argument is very good and informative and it is almost
the same as the first article but it had one minor difference making it a
better source. It is good due to the balance in usage of words, there is
no biased comments, the tone is moderate all the time There is also a
whole global explanation about it with very detailed facts about the
cases in different countries. It answers all the main questions that
people ask and its difference is that it is clearly structured and that
makes it easier to understand. It is like a descriptive timeline. Its only
setback again is it lacks people with credibility.